Re: Bob Crow - RMT Union leader : Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:59 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

As I said on numerous ocassions I have no issues with a socialist earning £1m as long as they don't spout fairness from such a lofty position - hypocritical IMO.

Yes – this is precisely the bølløcks you keep coming out with.

And in which case, you were asked what pay a "real socialist" should receive in order to be allowed to comment on unfairness etc without you getting your dander up. You have not done so.

Sal Paradise wrote:

We go back to McClusky - borderline communist if you listen to him sat in his comfy office with final salary scheme, health care etc funded by members who are sadly not party to such benefits spouting fairness and 'we are all in it together'.

And this is more of your usual bølløcks, showing – yet again – that you don't know the first thing about hypocrisy. You claim that, at a certain financial point (never stated) it become hypocritical to comment on societal unfairness. Yet you think that an organisation should act in direct contravention of what it has as its aims – and don't understand that that would be hypocritical.

David Titan wrote:

Whilst I support Bob Crow's level of remuneration, on the grounds that he was very good at his job, I would have thought that those people who rail against successful high earners should refuse any salary above national average wage. Otherwise aren't they just becoming part of the wealthy elite that they claim to despise?

That was not the point. Sal has claimed that, at certain levels of pay, one becomes a hypocrite if one comments on unfairness in society etc. It was pointed out to him (not by me) that this logic means that no non-slave should have campaigned against slavery, but he continues to peddle it. And he has repeatedly refused to explain what level of remuneration one should be allowed if one is still allowed to comment on these matters without upsetting him.

I suspect that, when people in general comment negatively about "high earners" (and such people are hardly limited to any one political side), they're not talking about £90k (plus pension and employer's NI contributions, which is the reality of the headline figure on Crow's 'wage'), but about people getting millions – in many cases, in situations where other employees in the same company/organisation have had their pay driven down, or where they have done nothing to earn massive bonuses (see the recent case involving the Co-operative Bank).

Re: Bob Crow - RMT Union leader : Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:49 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

So you think the average labour voter is favour of NHS privatisation, ATOS, CUTS, and rich donors?

They must be, otherwise they would have voted for a party who didn't have these things as the bedrock of their policies or "ideology".

Re: Bob Crow - RMT Union leader : Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:53 am  

BobbyD wrote:

They must be, otherwise they would have voted for a party who didn't have these things as the bedrock of their policies or "ideology".

If you really believe matters are a simplistic as that, I'm afraid that you're showing your ignorance.

Re: Bob Crow - RMT Union leader : Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:19 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

As I said on numerous ocassions I have no issues with a socialist earning £1m as long as they don't spout fairness from such a lofty position - hypocritical IMO.

We go back to McClusky - borderline communist if you listen to him sat in his comfy office with final salary scheme, health care etc funded by members who are sadly not party to such benefits spouting fairness and 'we are all in it together'.

Would you also consider William Wilberforce to be a hypocrite too?

After all, surely it should only be slaves who campaigned to abolish slavery, anyone else would simply be hyprocitial to do so

Re: Bob Crow - RMT Union leader : Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:16 pm  

Mintball wrote:

If you really believe matters are a simplistic as that, I'm afraid that you're showing your ignorance.

How so?

Re: Bob Crow - RMT Union leader : Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:42 am  

Mintball wrote:

Yes – this is precisely the bølløcks you keep coming out with.

And in which case, you were asked what pay a "real socialist" should receive in order to be allowed to comment on unfairness etc without you getting your dander up. You have not done so.

And this is more of your usual bølløcks, showing – yet again – that you don't know the first thing about hypocrisy. You claim that, at a certain financial point (never stated) it become hypocritical to comment on societal unfairness. Yet you think that an organisation should act in direct contravention of what it has as its aims – and don't understand that that would be hypocritical.

That was not the point. Sal has claimed that, at certain levels of pay, one becomes a hypocrite if one comments on unfairness in society etc. It was pointed out to him (not by me) that this logic means that no non-slave should have campaigned against slavery, but he continues to peddle it. And he has repeatedly refused to explain what level of remuneration one should be allowed if one is still allowed to comment on these matters without upsetting him.

I suspect that, when people in general comment negatively about "high earners" (and such people are hardly limited to any one political side), they're not talking about £90k (plus pension and employer's NI contributions, which is the reality of the headline figure on Crow's 'wage'), but about people getting millions – in many cases, in situations where other employees in the same company/organisation have had their pay driven down, or where they have done nothing to earn massive bonuses (see the recent case involving the Co-operative Bank).

More Minty diatribe!!

It is hypocritical to spout equality, fairness and wealth spread from a lofty position - the fact you cannot see that says much about your own thought processes and possibly your own cosy position? In a socialist system the level of remuneration should be in context to all those have an input into generating that wealth. You cannot put a figure on it because no two circumstances are identical - I know that urinates on your bonfire but that's life.

Take Richard Rogers - in his practice there is multiple between the lowest earner and the highest of ten times so if the top man wants to pay himself more he has to raise the salaries of the lowest earner. That seems like a sensible socialist compromise? The fact that he introduced after he had made his millions is a point to note.

Re: Bob Crow - RMT Union leader : Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:27 pm  

Interesting comment from an interview with Vince Cable today in The Observer...

I don't understand why people need a million quid a year. I've asked one or two of the more sympathetic bankers to explain it to me. The response has been: "It's not that I need the money, it is because others get it so I should, too." That is a ludicrous mindset. What on earth do these people think they are doing?

Can't find much to disagree with really, for the vast majority of folk a salary of one hundred thousand a year even before tax would be very difficult to spend after the first few months of reckless abandon and the realisation that jet skis and speedboats, ferraris and paying more than £30 for a course in a restaurant is just a way to burn your money and make someone else wealthy at your expense - why would you require ten times that amount every year ?

Re: Bob Crow - RMT Union leader : Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:43 pm  

Mr Cable putting in this CV for a job in the next Lib/Lab Government?

Re: Bob Crow - RMT Union leader : Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:57 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Interesting comment from an interview with Vince Cable today in The Observer...

Can't find much to disagree with really, for the vast majority of folk a salary of one hundred thousand a year even before tax would be very difficult to spend after the first few months of reckless abandon and the realisation that jet skis and speedboats, ferraris and paying more than £30 for a course in a restaurant is just a way to burn your money and make someone else wealthy at your expense - why would you require ten times that amount every year ?

Why does it matter what other people earn? A banker earning millions of pounds a year does not in anyway affect your life. You do not earn less just because somebody else earns more. The recent increase in Wayne Rooney's salary to £300k per week has not meant that my salary, your salary or Vince Cable's salary have seen corresponding decreases.

People need to stop being blinded by jealously and envy. I will never understand why somebody becoming enormously rich through sheer luck of winning £104 million on the Euromillions is something to celebrate whereas somebody becoming equally wealthy through hard work, entrepreneurship and talent is lambasted. This drive to the bottom, this celebration of mediocrity needs to stop. Instead of bashing the successful, people should look up to them and seek to emulate them.

Re: Bob Crow - RMT Union leader : Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:32 pm  

David Titan wrote:

Why does it matter what other people earn? A banker earning millions of pounds a year does not in anyway affect your life. You do not earn less just because somebody else earns more. The recent increase in Wayne Rooney's salary to £300k per week has not meant that my salary, your salary or Vince Cable's salary have seen corresponding decreases.

People need to stop being blinded by jealously and envy. I will never understand why somebody becoming enormously rich through sheer luck of winning £104 million on the Euromillions is something to celebrate whereas somebody becoming equally wealthy through hard work, entrepreneurship and talent is lambasted. This drive to the bottom, this celebration of mediocrity needs to stop. Instead of bashing the successful, people should look up to them and seek to emulate them.

I know it's late but I'm getting my shorts on and going out with the ball to try emulate Wayne Rooney. This time tomorrow I'll be a millionaire.